DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ASHA PRAKASH

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ASHA PRAKASH

The High Court erred in entertaining and allowing the writ petition filed by a subsequent purchaser; subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition or its deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation relied upon by the High Court has been overruled by...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent: Asha Prakash and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 04.01.2018
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchaser, Deemed Lapse of Acquisition
Land Acquisition Statutory Interpretation Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Locus Standi of Subsequent Purchaser Deemed Lapse of Acquisition

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Asha Prakash and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 04.01.2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a subsequent purchaser has locus to challenge acquisition or deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
  2. 2 Whether acquisition is deemed to have lapsed where compensation was not paid to the original landowners under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
  3. 3 Whether the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki remains good law in light of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in entertaining and allowing the writ petition filed by a subsequent purchaser; subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition or its deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation relied upon by the High Court has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority; accordingly the High Court judgment is quashed and set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court quashed and set aside
  • Appeal allowed